[alancalverd]

Altruists sacrifice themselves to save their kin.

which is why we need a second test to determine the morality of an action that might harm someone else.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The next question would be, what's the boundary of kin? How much similarity could still be considered our kin? How much difference can there be before it's no longer a kin?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Altruists sacrifice themselves to save their kin.

which is why we need a second test to determine the morality of an action that might harm someone else.

That's exactly what I said.

This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.

No, it is necessary to test an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver.

[alancalverd]

The next question would be, what's the boundary of kin? How much similarity could still be considered our kin? How much difference can there be before it's no longer a kin?

No need to complicate matters. If you'd be happy for me to do it to you, and for you to do it to your immediate family, it's moral. Necessity may require you to do things that don't meet those criteria.   

It's no big deal.We know what black and white look like, but some things are green. If we map them to monochrome in a photograph the green may come out as light or dark depending on the characteristics of the film.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No need to complicate matters. If you'd be happy for me to do it to you, and for you to do it to your immediate family, it's moral. Necessity may require you to do things that don't meet those criteria.   

Selfish organisms tend to be outcompeted by cooperative ones. The advantages to win the competition is bigger with bigger system and better organized the system we are cooperating with. A tribe with few individual members is likely outcompeted by tribes with more members. They are in turn outcompeted by polis/city states, kingdom, and empires.
The larger the system is, the more differences we must tolerate and call them our kin. What's intolerable is when some members of the system behave in such a way that's knowingly detrimental to the overall system.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's no big deal.We know what black and white look like, but some things are green. If we map them to monochrome in a photograph the green may come out as light or dark depending on the characteristics of the film.   

Complexity is required for more complex systems. More bits are required to describe something more precisely.
Oversimplification often bring unintended consequences.
You can't win a chess game against a world champion with simple shortcut rules such as values of pieces in decision making.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Solving for universal morality inevitably forces us to somehow make a connection between is and ought world. It's like bridging two parts of a city separated by a river.
Non-universal moralities try to build the bridge artificially. They provide shortcuts between those city parts, but only work for some cases, in specific time and space. In some other cases, other bridges are more suitable.
Universal morality employs naturally available connection between is and ought worlds, which is the cogito ergo sum. In our analogy, it's comparable to landmass around the river source. It may take longer route to proceed, but it works for all cases universally.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The universal moral standard is especially useful in dilemmatic situations like trolley problem and its variations. It helps us setting priority where simpler and more practical moral rules contradict one another.

[alancalverd]

Bit of an oxymoron there, my friend. How can the UMS (whatever that may be) be "especially useful" if there are "simpler and more practical" rules?   

You have chosen the problem: please now solve it using the UMS and a simpler alternative, and explain why the outcomes are different and which is preferable.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Bit of an oxymoron there, my friend. How can the UMS (whatever that may be) be "especially useful" if there are "simpler and more practical" rules?   

You have chosen the problem: please now solve it using the UMS and a simpler alternative, and explain why the outcomes are different and which is preferable.

Universal moral standard is easy to state, but in an environment with complex relationships of causality chains, the step by step decisions become hard to obtain. That's where simpler but rough moral rules come in handy. So practically, a society choose some moral rules which are known to have positive impacts to be followed. The rules with with longer lasting effect should be put at higher priority, so if there are case where following a moral rule inevitably violates another rule, the higher priority moral rule must be obeyed.
UMS is the highest priority moral rules. Under no circumstances it can be violated.
The prescription is to follow simplest moral rules, unless more information become available that in that particular case, it would violate higher priority moral rules.
Engineers have similar structural rules to follow. We use first principle to guide us how the universe works at fundamental level. But we also often use rule of thumb for more practical purposes which can give us faster answer. Oppenheimer famously used it to assess the result of nuclear bomb test.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Solving for universal morality inevitably forces us to somehow make a connection between is and ought world. It's like bridging two parts of a city separated by a river.
Non-universal moralities try to build the bridge artificially. They provide shortcuts between those city parts, but only work for some cases, in specific time and space. In some other cases, other bridges are more suitable.
Universal morality employs naturally available connection between is and ought worlds, which is the cogito ergo sum. In our analogy, it's comparable to landmass around the river source. It may take longer route to proceed, but it works for all cases universally.

Cogito ergo sum is the only naturally occuring connection between subjective and objective reality. The "ought world" only tells half story of subjective reality. The other half is its opposite, which is the "ought not world". Somehow Hume's guillotine left this part untouched.
So the more complete map to describe those worlds would consist of a city part on the left side representing "ought not world" or something that conscious agents want to avoid, middle part of the city representing objective reality, city part on the right side representing "ought world", or something that is preferred by conscious agents. Those city parts are separated by two rivers, which represent natural separations between subjective and objective realities.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morality is the quality of an action that you would be happy to have others do to you, and you would be happy to do to your loved ones. An action is either moral or immoral. It can also be necessary or expedient, but these have no bearing on its morality.

The concept of morality has no meaning outside of human society.

Why I, as an Atheist, Am No Longer a Humanist

I no longer call myself a humanist. Here’s why.

In 2019, I was confronted with some ideas which lead to an ideological shift. Thanks to Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot, Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, and Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, I came to see morality a bit differently. Rather than humanism, I’ve taken to sentientism and ethical veganism (and have for some time now). Ultimately, I don’t think labels are nearly as important as the principles they’re meant to communicate, so I don’t care to squabble over labels or definitions when I could instead cut directly to the issues at hand.

The Great Demotions often contribute to the cessation of various kinds of human prejudice. Speciesism, I think, should be the next to go.

[alancalverd]

Vanitas vanitatum!

If you abandon speciesism, you place yourself as no more deserving of life, liberty and happiness than whatever wants to infect or eat you. That doesn't flow from atheism but from an implicit assumption of some external arbiter (if not creator) of worth!

The first  lesson of every first aid, mountain or sea rescue course is always: protect yourself. That's not just speciesist, but necessarily selfish: you can't help others if you are dead. And before you mention rescuing battle casualties from no-man's land, it still applies: crouch and crawl, and show a red cross. The morality of kamikaze is left as an exercise for the reader (hint - it works best if the enemy has been dehumanised by propaganda)!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Vanitas vanitatum!

If you abandon speciesism, you place yourself as no more deserving of life, liberty and happiness than whatever wants to infect or eat you. That doesn't flow from atheism but from an implicit assumption of some external arbiter (if not creator) of worth!

The first  lesson of every first aid, mountain or sea rescue course is always: protect yourself. That's not just speciesist, but necessarily selfish: you can't help others if you are dead. And before you mention rescuing battle casualties from no-man's land, it still applies: crouch and crawl, and show a red cross. The morality of kamikaze is left as an exercise for the reader (hint - it works best if the enemy has been dehumanised by propaganda)!

We came from ancestors who didn't think that earthly life is ultimately empty. They were stepping stones for our existence, as we are stepping stones for our sucessors. If our fish ancestors thought that their lifeform and lifestyle were the most suitable in the universe, and resist changes to improve and adapt to changing environment, we won't be here to talk about this.

Universal consciousness is not limited by any particular species. With various environmental conditions in type 2 or 3 Kardashev level civilizations, it is more likely to have more than one species of conscious beings, whether or not they share common ancestors.

We should not limit our perspective to individual organism specimen's point of view. Let's remember that a multicellular organism is a collection of different types of cells working together to provide various functionalities necessary for their common survival. Those cells don't behave just for their own individual survivals, but rather for the larger system they are being part of. In turn, human individuals are just part of larger systems of consciousness.

[alancalverd]

We came from ancestors who didn't think that earthly life is ultimately empty.

I must reject the vanity of presuming that you know what our ancestors thought. Recent history is indeed perverted by belief in the supernatural but you have no right to inflict that disease retrospectively.

If our fish ancestors thought that their lifeform and lifestyle were the most suitable in the universe, and resist changes to improve and adapt to changing environment, we won't be here to talk about this.

Do you have any evidence for voluntary or intentional evolution? "What man is there among you that by taking thought could add one cubit to his stature?" (Jesus, somewhere in the book). Resistance to change is however common - most groups reject the abnormal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We came from ancestors who didn't think that earthly life is ultimately empty.

I must reject the vanity of presuming that you know what our ancestors thought. Recent history is indeed perverted by belief in the supernatural but you have no right to inflict that disease retrospectively.

If our fish ancestors thought that their lifeform and lifestyle were the most suitable in the universe, and resist changes to improve and adapt to changing environment, we won't be here to talk about this.

Do you have any evidence for voluntary or intentional evolution? "What man is there among you that by taking thought could add one cubit to his stature?" (Jesus, somewhere in the book). Resistance to change is however common - most groups reject the abnormal.

You approached the problem from the opposite direction. When I said that they didn't think that earthly life is ultimately empty, there are two possibilities. Either they did think that earthly life is NOT ultimately empty, or they didn't think about it at all.

In order to survive in harsh environment, any living organism must make some effort. If they actively suppress their survival instinct and reflex due to their belief that earthly life is ultimately empty, they are very likely to go extinct.
Our fish ancestors survived and evolved into many other species because they followed their instinct. To handle more complex problems, their descendants developed more complex data processing system, such as emotion and thoughts. The thought that earthly life is ultimately empty can suppress those necessary instinct and emotion.

[alancalverd]

Either they did think that earthly life is ultimately empty, or they didn't think about it at all.

Or they thought about it and didn't think it was ultimately empty. That pretty much covers all the possibilities, and the answer is that we don't and can't know.

[alancalverd]

The thought that earthly life is ultimately empty can suppress those necessary instinct and emotion.

Speak for yourself! I think that earthly life is ultimately empty and have no evidence to the contrary, but I have plenty of survival instinct because my emotions tell me that life is enjoyable.

My nephew teaches people to jump out of aeroplanes with a parachute because it is fun. I have dealt with others who jump out of windows without a parachute because life is not fun.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Either they did think that earthly life is NOT ultimately empty, or they didn't think about it at all.

Or they thought about it and didn't think it was ultimately empty. That pretty much covers all the possibilities, and the answer is that we don't and can't know.

Sorry, my typo confused you.
Fixed that.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The thought that earthly life is ultimately empty can suppress those necessary instinct and emotion.

Speak for yourself! I think that earthly life is ultimately empty and have no evidence to the contrary, but I have plenty of survival instinct because my emotions tell me that life is enjoyable.

My nephew teaches people to jump out of aeroplanes with a parachute because it is fun. I have dealt with others who jump out of windows without a parachute because life is not fun.

Your believe is not strong enough to suppress your survival instinct. Inadvertently, you just admitted that for you, nothing is more important than having fun.

On the other hand, 911 hijackers have a believe that is strong enough to overcome their survival instinct. So did kamikaze pilots, Bruce Willis' character in the movie Armageddon, and Iron Man in the End Game.